85 MPH speed limit coming

Hill Montana is now number 1 in fatality rate with 2.0 in 2009. It was just near the bottom of the pack in 1990. You may want to ask why fatalities haven't gone down like other states.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1104.pdf

Texas has its problems, but is doing much better than montana at 1.3/100 M vmt.

You might notice that massachuets is leading the pack with 0.6 fatality rate, less than half of the rate in 1990 when speed limits were 55. You may want to reevalute the reasons montana leads the nation.

 

Hey Dave, it's me Deane, the enviro guy in Oly.... What you're saying misses the point... The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is pretty clear when they say:

"The risk of death and severe injury is a direct exponential function of speed... For practical reasons, there are limits to the amount of crash energy that can be managed by vehicles, restraint systems and roadway hardware such as barriers and crash cushions. The higher the speed, the higher the likelihood that these limits will be exceeded in crashes, limiting the protection available for vehicle occupants. To put this into perspective, note that the government runs crash tests for occupant protection at 30-35 mph — speeds considered to be severe impact speeds."

Source:
IIHS-HLDI


Granted, there currently is a significant decline in highway deaths partially because of better cars but mostly because the price of gas has led to a huge and unprecedented decline in miles driven in the USA. It's very likely different in other countries, especially China.

Point is, the greater your velocity, the less likely your car is capable of protecting you in a crash.

 

I think those IIHS political action comittee guys need a come to jesus moment with some facts. Massachusets has a fatality rate of 0.6 with a max speed limit of 65 mph, and Utah has a fatality rate of 0.9 with a max speed limit of 80 mph.

The other lie from the IIHS is smaller cars cause more fatalities.

IIHS HAS BEEN EXACTLY WRONG ON PREDICTIONS.

The vmt is now larger in the US, not less. You need to stick to facts.

Safer cars, better enforced drunk driving laws, have dropped fatalities. Raising the speed limit, did not create the predicted deaths from those that claimed lowering the speed limit saved lives.

Funny how physics and the fatality statistics don't agree. Perhaps the IIHS doesn't really understand the laws of physics. Many that do, don't believe that lowering the speed limit by itself reduces fatalities.

 

...in VA if you speed way too fast 80+ mph it is considered excessive speeding and the penalty is quite severe $$$ including I believe possible criminal misdemeanor. So when the repubs recently bumped up speed limits to 70, the speeders felt the 80 mph extra severe penalty level should also be raised, but I believe it was held at 80 mph.

 

That seems like a good law. Raise the limit to the speed people are going and enforce with higher fines those that go at unsafe speeds.

What we hope happens with this highway is people travel the extra 12 miles around austin and avoid the extra traffic. That will releve traffic in town and make I35 safer. I would much prefer that it was a free road paid for by road taxes at 75 mph that by passes the 55mph zones, than a toll road. Instead we get a 85 mph toll road, hoping that people want to pay more to go faster. ugh. All because perry and the legislature wanted to partially privatize roads, instead of raising gas taxes.

 

...VA is also huge into the privatization of I95 $billion construction cost paid for by HOT lane people, pretty hard to sneeze at if you are a politician

 

How come you're always bellyaching about people not presenting the facts and you almost never reference your facts with a viable link?

Are you just too lazy? Or do you think you're of such superior intellect that you don't have to prove your point by referencing your sources?

For example when it come to huge decline in vehicle miles:

Vehicle Miles Driven Have Been Tumbling For 6 1/2 Years

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-22/markets/31379940_1_population-growth-data-population-adjustment#ixzz25kT7SwWM



Transportation Index Flashes Warning Sign - NASDAQ.com


Is Digital Revolution Driving Decline in U.S. Car Culture? | Digital - Advertising Age


More to the point:

There are no facts, only interpretations.
Friedrich Nietzsche

 

Why its in post 21, right before one of your posts. I certainly don't feel superior, but I understand statistics. I am a bit lazy, but you must be too, as I have shown you sources before.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1104.pdf
The National accademy of sciences and University of California disputed the IIHS before the nmsl was raised, but the real evidenxce is in the statistics.

Sure, but you can clearly see in your link that vehicle miles have increased a great deal since the repeal of the nmsl in November of 1995. The link I gave shows a drop in fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.

I am unsure of the point of this link. It seems to say don't advertise cars to young people. These are positive trends. Those under 30 are likely to drive less than baby boomers. Fewer vmt per person means lower per capita fuel. Unfortunately there has been a great increase in vmt for the country since the nmsl was repealed. There is more good news though people are driving safer even with higher speed limits.

Ah. do you imagine those with the
Wille zur Macht, will use it to make small laws to go slow. The ubermensche should not be cowed by the politicians in the IIHS. That would be the lesser man.

 

My apologies to Prius Chat for this train wreck of a thread... I'll refrain from interacting with AustinGree in any way from now on.

 

That may be with crashes into unyielding barriers under controlled conditions. Physics of crashes out in the wild are more complex. With medians and barriers on these high speed highways, the chance of head on collisions with other cars are very unlikely. So car on car crashing is with vehicles going the same direction and near the same speeds. In these cases, the collision speed probably doesn't vary much between 55, 65, and 75 PSL.

The right side of the highway is clear cut, or has a barrier to reduce collisions with trees, rock walls, etc. while still at traveling speed. Bridge supports and large overhead sigh columns have deflections to prevent a head crash with them. Guard rail and barrier ends are now designed to reduce damage in case of a collision. The cars aren't the only thing to get safer through the years.

 

Let us understand that the 85 is on part of an I35 bypass toll road. As such it will definitely increase fatalities, because its not open yet. It will be in November. The key statistic we should be looking at is do the fatalities on I35 drop more than fatalities occur on 130.

On I35 south of austin where this 85 mph speed limit will happen, many cars often go 80 mph then slow for traffic and drops in speed limits in populated areas and traffic by the outlet mall. The traffic is much higher than 20 years ago, and a bypass is needed. My assumption is if you made the bypass free and 75mph it would reduce more fatalities, but we are stuck with the toll road. Lets wait a couple of years and see what the statistics say and see if the toll road reduces traffic on I35. Everyone choosing to pay a toll on the road is an adult - well some are 16 or 17 - and can make their own decisions. I hope that we move some of the reckless speeders to the less congested higher speed road.

The key is a rural undivided highway is much more dangerous at a lower speed than one of these 75 and higher roads. There are no bicyclists, pedestrians, or cross traffic to hit. If people drive further to get to the safer higher speed road, then fatalities on the system decline. That is why the physics argument is simply wrong.

If you hit anouther car in the same direction it is your relative speed that makes it more dangerous. If you hit a tree wrong at 60 mph or 80 mph its not going to be pretty. On a faster road, it is likely designed to be harder to hit a tree. Speed limits need to be set to be safe for individual roads, not for revenues for insurance companies.

 

The physics argument is not "simply wrong." So far as I can tell, it's not wrong at all.
It's just that there are so many other factors, including all the safety devices on divided highways of interstate standard.
So, if you replace winding undivided rural highways with interstates, you will get a huge percentage drop in deaths, even if you have a higher speed limit on the interstate.
The higher speed limit does not promote safety directly--BUT the promise of a faster trip makes it politically and economically possible to invest in the safer road.
While the new interstates really are safer at any given speed than other roads (or than the first interstates in the 50s were), I have yet to see evidence that at constant traffic volume and age of cars, a given interstate is as safe at a higher than a lower speed. Even with the lower risk of hitting a tree, a given accident will on average be worse at higher than lower speeds.


On another part of the thread, I'm really interested in the article linked by PriusCamper claiming that miles driven per adult is going down. Given how many folks are convinced that the Great Recession is not over till they get a job, I'm not utterly convinced by that article that the drop in vehicle miles is likely to be permanent.
But I'm not sure it's wrong either, and it would be good news on the energy scene.

 

Hi Deane!! statistics are fine and dandy but mean almost nothing. to compare Utah with MASS? is insane. the differences in population, traffic, etc all plays a part.

put 10,000 people on 5 miles of freeway (MA) verses 500 people on 100 miles of freeway (UT) and we have 50,000 freeway miles in both cases but huge differences in driving risk and likelihood of accidents.

also keep in mind, posted limits only tell half the story. i am guessing death rates in MA are low simply because traffic sucks. so accidents are generally low speed due to congestion

either way, i cant help but wonder if it might not be prohibitively expensive to network the highways with the cars ala Google self piloting vehicles.

this would insure greater density of cars moving at a much higher efficiency since emergency stops, bad light timing, etc would all be eliminated

that would only be the beginning of savings. consider a 45 minute daily commute (normal here if going more than 25 miles) no longer a 45 minute waste if allowed to browse the web or read the paper or get an additional 45 minutes of sleep?

i bring this up because it seems like the discussion have veered from an acceptable speed limit to infringement of one's personal time.

so would you accept a 60 mph maximum speed limit if you and your family could enjoy a movie on the trip not having to worry about doing the driving?

 

Regardless of safety, the slower the overall highway speed, the better our collective MPG. People oughta explore how relaxing it is to drive as slow, or even slower than the big trucks...

 

The IIHS has made 2 physics arguments, both of them incorrect. The first is that if you paint higher numbers on a sign that more people will die going faster. The second if you raise cafe, that vehicles will get lighter, and lighter, and more people will die.

Now lets talk about the first argument, is it simple physics. The only way for it to be simple physics is if the same or more collisions are happening , and those where there were only injuries will cause deaths. IIHS studied only roads where speed limits were raised, and found deaths went up, and extrapolated that if this was done in the whole country then deaths would greatly go up. Now what did the national academies of science say when they looked at the same data? That people where ignoring the speed limit on these roads, before they were raised. That higher speed limits moved traffic from less safe roads to the safer roads. The death toll actually decreased instead of increased but not in a statistically significant manner when all the roads were looked at. Note this completely removes physics as the main driver and moves it to human factors. Who was right? Speed limits were raised and the, NAS prediction has been right, when you look at the statistics. It boils down to human factors, not physics. When you ignore human factors on a complex problem, and make it seem simpler than it is, you likely will get a wrong result. Now NMA says IIHS wanted the wrong result, and I'll leave it to you to determine this. Their argument is arbitrarily low numbers painted on a sign lead to a higher percentage violating the speed limit, leading to more speeding tickets, with more oportunities for the insurance companies to raise insurance rates.

Why does the IIHS argument physics means heavier cars are safer, meaning cafe standards lead to less safe cars where more people die, turn out wrong as well. First is many fatalities are single vehicle accidents, if a heavier vehicle does not have better brakes it is more likely to go through barriers and cause fatalities. The second is yes the driver of the heavier vehicle is more likely to survive in a collision of the lighter vehicle. But this simply shifts who dies, it does not reduce the number of people dieing. Much data is saying large numbers of SUVs increase fatality rates.

If you are going to look at fatality statistics on changing speed limits you need to look at vmt since the speed limits were raised. They are much higher than 1995. They are lower than pre-recession.

Remember this 85 mph speed limit is on part of a new toll road that by passes congested I35 in austin which includes 55mph sections. If a vehicle takes the whole bypass toll road they go 12 miles out of their way. If the new road was 55 mph its doubtfull much traffic would move off i35. IMHO we should have built it non-toll and set the speed limit at 75mph.

 

they should start a study to see how many drivers will start doing 85 MPH on other highways as a result of the 85 mph limit on this new one

 

That would be a good study, but the toll road part of it will interfere. Will a bypass with higher speeds 65-85, cause less or more speeding and fatalities on I35 - speed limit 55-75. I'll ask texdot if they can keep numbers broken out for us.

 

The latest article in Road and Track perhaps best represents the lead-footed get out of my way attitude that I find not only dangerous but aborhent and arrogant as well: Texas Sets 85 mph Speed Limit

 

What do you mean "start"? They are already driving 85mph on our 65mph (or lower) posted Interstates in NJ & PA.

 

^^^
Excellent. That motortrend opinion piece included http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/97084/97084.pdf

Which shows changes in vehicle speeds and standard deviation with changing speed limits. Some real data about speeding behavior with lowering speed limits.